You must use the “Get Article” link below and use the copied text for your repost. Stories may not be edited without permission from Ensia. Please send an email to contact@ensia.com with a link to the republished story on your site once posted.

Images and other visuals are not included in this license. For specific questions related to visuals, please contact Todd Reubold. For other inquiries, email contact@ensia.com.

The post is now in your clipboard. You can paste it directly into the WYSIWYG editor of your site.

These are rough waters. GMOs seem to polarize people more than almost any other topic, including evolution or climate change. And the debates around GMOs — especially whether they are safe to eat or safe to grow — can get very fierce. While it takes a lot of effort, I try to stay open-minded on the topic, because this isn’t a simple black and white issue.

But it should be obvious to everyone that the use of GMOs in agriculture — so far, at least — has come with some big problems. Even strong GMO proponents, if they stop and think about it, would have to acknowledge that important difficulties have arisen.

From where I sit, the biggest problem associated with GMOs isn’t the technology per se; it’s how they’ve been deployed. Despite early promises, as GMOs move from lab into the real world, they end up being very disappointing.

In theory, GMOs sound very useful. They are supposed to help us “feed the world” because they will improve food security, dramatically boost crop yields, combat weeds and pests using fewer chemicals, make crops more nutritious, and have tremendous benefits to society. But have they?

No. Not really.

To begin, GMOs have done little to enhance the world’s food security. Mainly, that’s because GMO crops primarily in use today are feed corn (mostly for animal feed and ethanol), soybeans (mostly for animal feed), cotton and canola. But these aren’t crops that feed the world’s poor, or provide better nutrition to all. GMO efforts may have started off with good intentions to improve food security, but they ended up in crops that were better at improving profits. While the technology itself might “work,” it has so far been applied to the wrong parts of the food system to truly make a dent in global food security.

GMOs can claim some successes, but a widespread quantum leap in the yield of important food crops is not one of them.

Furthermore, GMOs have had uneven success in boosting crop yields. For example, in the United States, where they are in widespread use, it appears that GMOs have not dramatically improved the yields of corn or soybeans. That’s probably because GMOs in use today have not actually changed the biology behind photosynthesis or crop growth. Instead, these GMOs, in the U.S. anyway, mainly replaced older forms of conventional pest control (spraying older, more toxic pesticides) with new ones (planting Bt and Roundup Ready crop varieties and spraying new pesticides). However, it seems that the introduction of Bt cotton did substantially improve yields in India, probably because it was an effective means of combating pests that were limiting yield there before. Canola in Canada is also seeing a measurable boost, and GMOs likely helped the Hawaiian papaya crop, which otherwise might have been hard hit by disease. And, as Amy Harmon points out, future GMOs may be helpful in combating citrus greening disease that is becoming widespread in American orange groves. So GMOs can claim some successes, but a widespread quantum leap in the yield of important food crops is not one of them. Here, I think a lack of systems thinking — and asking, “What is truly limiting yield to food crops in different locations and different farming systems?” — has hampered the effectiveness of GMOs in this regard.

One of the other purported benefits of GMO crops is that they use fewer chemicals to combat weeds and insects. While this is true in some situations, it turns out that it may not always be the case. Since the late 1990s, there appears to have been a net increase in total pesticide use for GMO corn, soybeans and cotton in the U.S. While insecticide application was down for crops using Bt traits to combat insects, this was apparently offset by a substantial increase in total herbicide use on U.S. croplands (although, to be clear, this is only an estimate of the total volume of pesticides, which may be a poor indication of their impact), likely because more weeds have become resistant to Roundup. And now industry is proposing a new set of GMO crops that are resistant to the more powerful 2,4-D herbicide. But what’s to stop weeds from becoming resistant to 2,4-D, just as they did to Roundup, creating an herbicide treadmill? Again, a lack of systems thinking — which would have anticipated these “rebound” problems with silver-bullet approaches to weed control — seems to have been a problem here.

Why not put more effort into improved agronomic approaches instead, which could yield results today? Why is the unproven, high-tech silver-bullet approach better than simpler efforts to address the same problem?

And, unfortunately, the effects of GM cropping systems seem to be having an impact on habitats and the environment. For example, ecologist Karen Oberhauser, a University of Minnesota colleague, recently documented a major decline in monarch butterfly habitat in the Upper Midwest, due at least in part to the use of GMO crops and their associated pesticides. “Tragically, much of their breeding habitat in this region has been lost to changing agricultural practices, primarily the exploding adoption of genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant crops in the late 20th and early 21st centuries,” Oberhauser said. “These crops allow post-emergence treatment with herbicides, and have resulted in the extermination of milkweed from agricultural habitats.” Again, GMO technology per se wasn’t the problem here. The problem was how the technology was applied — without a deep appreciation of the landscapes and environmental systems within which GMOs are deployed.

I also become skeptical when GMO proponents talk about developing more sophisticated crops, including those that could be drought tolerant, fix their own nitrogen, be better acclimated to higher temperatures, and so on. Again, these sound great, but we’ve learned a lot about genomics since the early days of GMOs; we now realize more complex plant behaviors cannot be turned “on” or “off” by changing a single gene. So it may be a long while before these crops are ready for the real world. Why not put more effort into improved agronomic approaches — such as using cover crops, mulching and organic-style techniques — instead, which could yield results today? Why is the unproven, high-tech silver-bullet approach better than simpler efforts to address the same problem?

I worry that GMOs are sometimes the victims of reductionist thinking, where the focus is on technology and business models, and less on the social and environmental impacts they may cause.

Similarly, GMO advocates talk about how biotech crops can boost nutrition and help alleviate disease around the world. “Golden rice” is perhaps the best example of this, where rice is engineered to contain beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. The lack of this important vitamin is linked to the death of hundreds of thousands of children each year. So while golden rice seems a very worthwhile goal, I have to wonder why GMO proponents feel it’s easier to change the fundamental biological character of rice (introducing a trait that could never arise in nature) than to simply grow more diverse crops, especially vegetables that already contain vitamin A? Why pick an expensive, high-tech approach — costing millions of dollars and decades of work, with no guarantee that people will accept and eat orange-colored rice — rather than low-tech, simple solutions that could work right now? Again, there seems to be an obsession with technical, silver-bullet solutions, where a simple approach might be more effective.

Finally, many GMO advocates seem puzzled by the strong social and cultural resistance to their products. This is perhaps best exemplified by the debate over GMO labeling in the U.S. Many GMO proponents criticize labels as “unscientific” because there is “no substantial biological difference” between GMOs and traditional crops. Maybe, but that’s not the point. It’s about respecting people’s deep cultural connection to food and their right to know what’s in it. To people who say GMO labels are misguided, I ask, “Would you be happy if all the meat in your grocery store was simply sold as ‘animal,’ whether it was beef, chicken, pork, horsemeat, dog or whatever?” Even if an “expert” assured you that these meats had no “substantial biological difference” from each other? You’d at least like to know if you were eating beef or horsemeat, right? It would behoove GMO proponents to include social scientists in the discussion to better understand these cultural issues.

What do all of these issues have in common? To me, they show that GMOs have frequently failed to live up to their potential, not because they are inherently flawed, but because they have been deployed poorly into the complex social and environmental contexts of the real world. And I worry that GMOs are sometimes the victims of reductionist thinking, where the focus is on technology and business models, and less on the social and environmental impacts they may cause. Interestingly, this is where organic farming models have much to teach us. While not perfect (no system is), organic farms typically start with a systems perspective on weeds, pest management, soil nutrients and the larger interactions with society and the environment. I think we have a lot to learn from the organic paradigm, and many of these ideas should be folded into conventional farming.

Looking forward, I would urge GMO advocates to take a collective step back and think more holistically about GMO technologies and their implications for health, agriculture, economics, culture, society and the environment. This is a big job, and it won’t happen overnight. But a good start would be to build more interdisciplinary research and development teams — with social scientists, agronomists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, nutritionists, organic farmers and GMO critics as well as biotechnologists. This is clearly lacking now. In fact, I was recently in a friendly but intense debate about GMOs with biotechnology researchers, and I asked them, “How many of you regularly collaborate with ecologists, social scientists, etc., to try to anticipate and resolve these issues?” Silence. And then, after a long pause, a few admitted that maybe this would be a good idea.

Ultimately, no individual or small group will decide the fate of GMOs. We’ll have to work through this together, as a society.

I would also like to see GMOs developed with public funding, or through public-private partnerships, where the findings and intellectual property are put into the public domain, to be shared with anyone in the world. Supporting this work with more openness and transparency would help ensure that any potential social and environmental benefits of GMO technology are put ahead of immediate profits. And it would go a long way in improving the broader public understanding and trust of this technology, which is sorely lacking today.

Lastly, I would strongly urge both sides of the GMO debate to do a better job of engaging with each other and the broader public. Frankly, but for a few notable exceptions (including the recent debate sparked by Nathanael Johnson’s work at Grist), both sides leave something to be desired here. Both characterize the other side unfairly, and, frankly, I suspect there is a large, quiet majority in the middle — that is probably skeptical of the extremes on both sides.

Ultimately, no individual or small group will decide the fate of GMOs. We’ll have to work through this together, as a society. And that’s the way it should be, because how we decide to use, or not use, GMOs is too important to leave to just one way of thinking.

Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present them to further discussion around important topics. We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found here. In addition, you might consider submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s “Contact” page for submission guidelines.

For more enlightened discussion about GMOs — from both sides — I would recommend reading recent work by Nathanael Johnson, Tom Philpot, Amy Harmon and Ramez Naam. They have all done a great job of engaging in this debate, thoughtfully and respectfully. We could all stand to have some more of that.

Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.

You say the "more powerful 2,4-D herbicide". This herbicide is not more powerful, it is just different, with a different mode of action and it is effective primarily against broadleaved plant species. On certain species, like cotton, it is extremely active, but it has very little activity against grasses. There are already weeds that are resistant to 2,4-D, but by combining or alternating modes of action, the development of weeds that are resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D can be delayed or avoided.

LindaFeb. 25th, 2014

You beautifully stated many points in the pro-labeling/pro-precautionary principle position. I especially am encouraged by your comments about Golden Rice. This GM product is being singled out as an example of being prevented from using this technology to solve a world hunger problem, when the problem is just so much more than a lack of beta-carotene. I am very active in the pro-labeling effort in California, & my impression of the pro-GM debate is that it is just plain mean, vindictive, & eager to employ personal attacks against the people out advocating for labeling. Also, regarding glyphosate - this herbicide is not as benign as some seem to think it is. Its safety testing has been very problematic, & now that its use has increased so dramatically with the use of glyphosate-resistant crops, we are beginning to see the full impact of this environmental toxin. And re the opportunity costs of this technology being used as it is in our food supply - we are not devoting enough resources to IWM practices which, if we were to throw as much money at as we have at GE foods, would I'm sure be showing enormous promise, & without the toxic side effects of GE agriculture. Anyway, good job with the op piece. Get this published in a mainstream news source & you can watch the pro-GM vitriole explode.

Jane PetersFeb. 25th, 2014

I don't want to eat any GMOs. I consider them frankenfoods.

John FowlerFeb. 26th, 2014

I think many would agree that the following question, posed by the author, is a central one, as humans look to cope with our current situation on the planet: “What is truly limiting yield to food crops in different locations and different farming systems?”

The central criticism of the article appears to be that GMO applications to date have not addressed those ‘true limitations’ (according to the author), due at least in part of a lack of systems thinking on the part of GMO proponents and scientists. Several specifics are cited, with some possible solutions (or at least approaches to addressing the problems raised) suggested. The criticisms and suggestions are primarily directed at GMO proponents and scientists.

A single short paragraph near the conclusion urges both sides to do a better job of engaging with each other, but other than this, there does not appear to be any indication that GMO opponents have done (or are doing) anything that would hinder addressing the ‘true limitations’.

Thus, due to the construction and the gist of the article, the implication is that there is not much to criticize in the approaches of GMO opponents to this debate and its outcome. Is this truly the author’s perspective? Or, might I suggest writing a companion piece, with criticisms and suggestions directed primarily at GMO opponents? I would be interested to read such an article.

Thank you -

Robert WilsonFeb. 26th, 2014

“Would you be happy if all the meat in your grocery store was simply sold as ‘mammal,’ whether it was beef, chicken, pork, horsemeat, dog or whatever?”

Given that chicken is not a mammal I would not be happy for it to be labelled "mammal."

That aside this analogy is a bit flawed. People buy different types of meat because of things like taste. It is not a question of culture, but fact that you have to cook them differently, so it is rather important to the average consumer to know what they are buying. A GM product is what you might call "oven equivalent", chicken, beef or port certainly are not.

I also fail to see how people do have the "right to know" what is in their food. Food labels are finite in length and government regulators have to make decisions on what does or does not appear on them.

Should we not have a label to state which ingredients in food products violate religious taboos?

If we were to grant people the right to know what is in their food each time someone shouts loud enough food would come attached with a book heavier than the Bible, and one with even less useful instructions. So, unless people can point to genuine health or environmental reasons for including GM labels, this is essentially a case of giving rights to those who shout loudest.

And where does that lead us? What if someone was to ask for the right to know if their food was produced by Mexican immigrants? Yes, here is another irrational impulse that has deep cultural roots. But what argument can you put forward against this, if the "right to know" is such a sacrosanct concept?

I wouldn't expect Bt crops to boost yields in developed nations if their main function is to replace insecticides. But you wouldn't expect that to be the case in developing nations where insecticides may be too expensive for subsistence farmers or the lack of infrastructure would reduce the availability of insecticides. So you would expect a boost in yield in agricultural systems where there has not been any access to insecticides previously. This of course only makes sense if the seeds are free to the farmer.

And who exactly has been calling GM crops a "silver bullet"? All the "pro"-GM talks I have seen ALWAYS stress that GM technology is just one tool in the box and NOT a silver bullet.

Rob LFeb. 26th, 2014

One of the best arguments I've seen for GMO labeling.

However, not all meat is the same. Some people can't eat red meat because it leads to gout, others prefer chicken because it's leaner. Moreover, they usually taste very different.

Also wouldn't it be easier for companies to apply a non-GMO label rather than force a GMO label on everything? What would the cost be to the consumer if we had to incorporate the requisite tracking into our food system? There is systems level thinking that must be considered here as well.

If roundup is killing milkweed, how is this not increasing yield?

If the economics of GM improve profits, does this also not get passed on the the consumer? Could we even do organic as industrial scale without significantly increasing the cost if food. These decisions have real consequences and the people making these decisions may have the budget to afford a more expensive food system, but what about those that don't?

I agree, GM is not a silver bullet, and GM may not be the answer, but given the regulatory overhead and lead time it shouldn't be surprising that we are not developing better GM solutions. We're still at the very beginning of the genetics era, sequencing costs are starting to become affordable, so it's no surprise that the first and second generation solutions were not perfect.

TomFeb. 26th, 2014

BTW there are plenty of public sector GM crop varieties out there but the financial hurdle of getting them approved means that only the big biotech companies can afford to bring varieties to market (and they to be more interested in getting a return on their investment). My favorite example of a public sector GM crop is aluminum-tolerant corn, which can thrive in acidic soils. It would have been made freely available to Mexican farmers ten years ago but was blocked by activists. There's your ideal GM crop for yield increase.

Jon DavisFeb. 26th, 2014

1. The ultimate in reductionist thinking is to ban GMOs, as has been done in Hawaii, or never bring them to market, as in many nations of the world, limiting the choices of farmers. No one is trying to ban the solutions Foley proposes.

2. Herbicide use and herbicide resistant crops have facilitated the rapid spread of no-till agriculture, whose benefits to the conservation of soils and soil should be considered in a holistic systems approach. And yes, the monarch situation should be addressed with conservation areas.

3. One million children die or are blinded by vitamin A deficiency. One million. And the solution you propose is not working. Neither are very inexpensive supplements. See the work of the Helen Keller Foundation. It is difficult for us to sitting pretty in the first world to truly understand how poor you have to be if you can only afford to feed your toddler rice, which is inexpensive and can be stored dry in surplus. Give Golden Rice a chance. To introduce this topic without mentioning the destruction of test plots at IRRI by anti-GM activists overlooks these critical agent of "reductionist thinking."

MaryFeb. 26th, 2014

I'm shocked to learn that GMOs are so powerful that they resist all other 'holistic' interventions. But it's not clear to me what you think is unique to GMOs that causes this. Can't be herbicides--we have those without GMOs. Can't be monocultures--have those without GMOs. Can you be more explicit about how not having GMOs automagically opens holistic approaches?

But you've also misrepresented actual projects. Have you even looked at programs that are developing GMOs like Golden Rice? At IRRI--they have their org chart right on the web: http://irri.org/about-us/our-organization

Note they have a "social sciences division" and "sustainable production systems" groups.

We've also got data from economics and policy folks. They show us this is a valuable intervention on many fronts. Yet nobody is trying to prevent any of the other strategies either. The only people trying to prevent stuff are people who are trash talking GMOs.

No where in these comments or in the original article do I find any mention of that fact that genetic engineering, as it's done today, is a highly mutagenic process that is linked to observable problems in animal studies & poses a safety risk to human consumers of GE foods. I find it astonishing that this inconvenient truth is overlooked so often, but especially in the case of Golden Rice, since the intention of that product is to replace a staple food in local communities, which means it would be widely eaten by people who lack access to basic health care & so would have no where to go in the event of adverse reactions to this staple food. When you combine that with the fact that the FDA does not currently require all GE foods to systematically undergo safety assessments with the agency, this provides a science-based, legal basis for the labeling of GE foods. Also, someone mentioned the cost to manufacturers of labeling GMOs on packages. Only one economic impact study has ever been done about this (Emory Univ. Law School), & it found no impact at all on family grocery bills or on manufacturer costs, since food manufacturers routinely relabel their products - they'll simply put GMO labeling into the pipeline & it's done. I agree that current food labeling is confusing to consumers, & doesn't provide the information we need to make healthy food choices, but Michelle Obama's new food labeling initiative is about to be implemented, & the new food labels solve many of their prior problems.

Jon FoleyFeb. 26th, 2014

Thanks for all of the constructive comments. Very good things to think about, and I appreciate the critique and feedback.

As I tried (?) to say, no one person (and certainly not me) or group has all of the answers here, but it's important that we respectfully discuss and debate these issues, and challenge each other to think about them from a different point of view. And that's always a good thing, so long as the discussions are respectful and grounded in data.

And, whoops! I'm terribly embarrassed by Robert Wilson's first observation that I lumped "chicken" in with "mammal". (I probably should have said "animal", and I do remember a bit of my high school biology :-) Obviously I was just making a tongue-in-cheek analogy here, but still should have been more precise.

John FowlerFeb. 26th, 2014

Hello Jon,
Thank you for admitting your obvious mistake with the analogy. I also was not aware that this was a 'tongue-in-cheek' argument, it came across as serious. The entire article comes across as intent on a real academic debate; is this the case?

I am interested in hearing a serious, non-tongue-in-cheek analogy from you. Clearly the "animal" label also doesn't work for this purpose, as there is no "expert" that would would actually say that there is "no substantial biological difference" between different meat products. Can you come up with another?

Jon DavisFeb. 26th, 2014

@Linda, you may not be aware of the overwhelming scientific consensus that GM foods are safe. See this infographic: http://goo.gl/xDibo9. It is funny that you mention "mutagenic" because when novel varieties of crops are generated through mutation with cobalt-60, these varieties are not tested and can even be "organic." See mutation breeding/atomic gardens. GM crops are the *most* tested on the market and the reason for this is that the process seemed transgressive after the rise of the modern environmental movement. Mutation breeding was grandfathered in. So the whole "GM foods are unsafe" argument is spurious.

MaryFeb. 26th, 2014

The mystery meat label may be just a joke--but there are vegans for whom that is a useful label. There are "vegan" labels, right? That, however, is a voluntary label. Would it be fair to make everyone else pay for mandatory vegan labels? And for prosecution of breeches of that? Enforcement of that?

Voluntary labeling seems to be effective.

Greg ladenFeb. 26th, 2014

People absolutely do have a right to know what is in their food. Food labels are not finite in size. All they need to be is a link to whatever amount of information is needed. Indirect linkage of the paper variety is already in use in restaurants.

Robert WilsonFeb. 26th, 2014

Greg

I really do not see how the right to know argument has any legs to stand on. There is an almost unlimited amount of information that you could put on a label. Therefore labelling laws have to have a rationale for why there is a mandatory label. Mandatory labels for food that people are commonly allergic to has a clear justification. In the case of GM there appears to be no justification. If GM labelling is OK then there is absolutely no reason why there should not be a mandatory label for whether something is vegan, halal or kosher, and so on.

Because food labels are finite in size you cannot have mandatory labels for all of these things, so unless there is a specific justification for a GM label on health of environmental grounds, then I really cannot see why it should get one and not vegan, halal or kosher. So, the real question is where does the right to know end?

LindaFeb. 26th, 2014

@Jon Davis, there is a great deal about what you stated that is disputable. Rather than spendthe time outlining the omissions from your conclusions, I will ask you to go to Dr. Belinda Martineau's blog biotechsalon.com & start reading. We're entitled to drawing different conclusions based on the same information, but we have a real problem in the US in our discussion of this topic, due mostly to a very well orchestrated disinformation campaign by biotech/chem industry interests. I appreciate, though, that you have different opinions than I; where I draw the line is statements like "overwhelming scientific consensus". In addition to Dr. Martineau, you might investigate others' work, inc. that of Dr. Michael Hansen, Dr. Marsha Ishtii-Eiteman, Dr. Thierry Vrain, Dr. Michelle Perro, & others who are not only not a part of this overwhelming scientific consensus, but can explain better than I can why there is no such consensus.

LoriFeb. 26th, 2014

I do appreciate your attempt to appear non-biased but your anti-GMO leanings in this article are very clear. I like to say that I am pro-science. But science can be used to argue for and against GMOs. It just depends on your world view which experts you will trust. For example, my bias is that I don't believe feelings should be more important than facts. Neuroscience (science!) tells us that our brains find it very difficult to use reason when strong emotions are involved. This is an argument both in favor of taking people's feelings into account and an argument against letting feelings trump reason. What about all the social science research showing people make irrational decisions especially where fear is involved? Why should important decisions about GMOs be based on myths and misunderstandings and outright lies? Add in the profit motive of pro-GMO companies (agri-business) and yes, anti-GMO companies (organic growers, Whole Foods) and who to trust becomes very tricky indeed!

Activists for and against GMOs don't have to reveal their biases -- those biases are clear as day. Their job is to fight for their cause. Scientists on the other hand are supposed to neutral. However scientists on both sides of this issue are naive or in denial if they think all scientists are incapable of bias. We know that the credibility of the results of any study are completely dependent on the strength of the experimental design. To make good decisions about GMOs we need rigorous research done with maximum transparency. Both sides should get together before research projects are designed, and agree on some basic principles so the results can be be viewed as valid by both sides--come what may.

I do agree with the point you make on both side of the debate needing to engage each other and the public in a more civilized way, but some of the points you make in this post are much to simplistic. Golden rice will help vitamin A deficiencies in areas of the world where it is not always an option to grow more vitamin A rich crops. It WILL save lives but people are fighting against it on a strictly political basis. I would love to see a higher number of farmers using a more sustainable methods but the reality is we will NEED both organic and conventional farming to feed the world population. GMO's are not flawless but Organic methods aren't either and the more farmers switching to organic the less food supply we will have. The divide that is being drawn between these types of farmers (largely by people who have never set foot on a farm) is going to be problematic in the future. We have to stop fighting and start working together for better methods. I suggest you read the book; 'Full Planet, Empty Plates The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity" by Lester R. Brown. It is not Pro-GMO (there is only 1 paragraph in the whole book that even mentions them) but it is a book about the reality of the food situation on our planet, which so many of us in the rich countries of Canada and the US really don't fully understand.

BradFeb. 27th, 2014

Another issue is the strong possibility that GMO’s are a direct cause to many ailments almost everyone experiences these days that were not so prominent in society prior to the introduction of GMO’s in our food supply.

Robert WilsonFeb. 28th, 2014

Brad

Among these ailments is saying stupid things on the internet. Prior to the introduction of GMOs almost no one said stupid things on the internet. I fail to see how this is a coincidence. Do you?

Greg PrattFeb. 28th, 2014

Nice article Jon. The discussion is interesting, and it's clear that there are strong opinions.

There may be no definitive evidence linking GMO crops to disease, but there are some intriguing studies and plausible hypotheses and mechanisms that warrant further work. The absence of definitive evidence does not lead us to conclude that there is evidence of absence.

To me, the biggest issue is about power and control in society and of the food supply. Historically, farmers have been able to save seeds and manage the genetic heritage on their farms to a significant extent. That is increasingly less possible as crop genetic material becomes the intellectual property of transnational corporations whose purpose is making a profit. In this issue as in many others we see the black side corporate capitalism that does not have at its heart an egalitarian view towards the betterment of humankind.

You mentioned improved cotton yield in India, but not the human cost of GMO cotton there. In this vein I recommend the movie "Bitter Seeds" the last in Micha X. Peled’s Globalization Trilogy. Quoting from the synopsis: "Following a U.S. complaint to the World Trade Organization, India had to open its doors to foreign seed companies. Within a few years, multinational corporations had taken over India’s seed market in a number of major crops. Now only GM seeds are available at the shops, requiring India’s farmers to pay an annual royalty. The GM seeds are much more expensive; they need additional fertilizers and insecticides and must be re-purchased every season. While large farms have prospered, the majority of farmers find it increasingly more difficult to make a living off their land." This situation has led to an epidemic of farmer suicides--up to 17,500 per year.

Jon DavisFeb. 28th, 2014

Ahhhhhhh... the Indian farmer suicide myth! Correlation=causation on modern diseases. I have a bingo card with all these awful arguments. It's worse than all the conspiracy theories that drive the anti-vax movement. Just stop.

Some 40 years ago professors at the U of MN taught me molecular and plant biology, and for over 30 years I used what they taught me to develop and then to support regulatory approvals for GM crops. I have recently retired but remain active in supporting the technology.
There is only one good reason why GM crops have not lived up to most of our expectations or have mostly been developed by the large multinationals – money. Those opposed to the technology have managed to have regulatory barriers erected globally that are so significant that only the large multinationals can afford them and only for the crops that can repay the significant investment. It can cost $40 million dollars to obtain the global regulatory approvals necessary to prevent lawsuits from low level presence of an unapproved event in a boatload of corn shipped to some country where a regulatory approval has yet to be obtained. This was confirmed to me by two U of MN deans and a U vice-president last year when I asked why no GM crops were being developed at the U. Although I suspect it was also likely that it would be politically difficult to explain why GMO development was supported when the U had a campus dedicated to organic agriculture (and with regard to the question to U biotech researchers on outside interactions: How many ecologists, social scientists – and organic researchers - come to talk with biotech researchers?).
I find it difficult to understand how one can complain about GMOs not making a quantum leap in yield while organics have actually managed to reduce yield by 20 to 43% (Seufert, et al, 2012); and while it may not have been a quantum leap, according to a U of MN researcher (Hutchison, et al, 2010) Bt corn did manage to save growers in MN, WI and IL $3.2 billion since its introduction, most of which was realized by non-Bt, including organic, growers (although making money is apparently not a valuable consideration).
And when it comes to expectations, we (I well remember all these early, and some continuing, claims) were told that organic foods would be safer, more nutritious, better for the environment and more sustainable. Well, not safer or more nutritious according to UK Food Standards Agency (2009), Smith-Spangler, et al (2012) or from the U’s Food Science Dept (Mukherjee, et al, 2007). Better for the environment? According to Venkat (2010) organic’s carbon footprint is not better than that of conventional ag and according Seufert, et al (2012) the yields for organic production is between 20% (in developed countries) and 43% (in developing countries) lower than conventional – so apparently organic growers are using 20 to 43% more former wetland, forest or prairie to produce the same amount of food. More sustainable? According to the United Nations (1987): “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” How can we sustain the needs of the present with a 20 to 43% reduction in yield, yet alone address the needs of the future generation that will reach 9 billion in 2050?
Although I would certainly like to say we have done better (and, again, the cost of regulatory approvals is the issue), GMO crops are having a significant impact with the world's poor. For the last two years (2012-2013) more acres have been planted to GM crops in developing countries than in industrial countries (James, 2014). But with regard to Gold Rice, it sounds like the author's preferred solution to vitamin A deficiency is to convince the poorest farmers in the world to dedicate extra land that they don’t have to produce a crop with fewer calories, so although they may starve, they will die with perfect vision.
One may continue to hypothesize philosophically about holistic agriculture while those who really care about doing something constructive to address global hunger and food security continue to combat those whose opposition to GMOs is stoked by these arguments.

AdamMar. 2nd, 2014

Nice article. I would have liked to see you mention the biggest question of all, at least in my opinion and that is how do we go back if this doesn't work out ?

Hypothetically speaking let's say we find out there is a huge problem with GMO crops after using them for another 10 years.

Let's hear all the educated GMO advocates explain how exactly we go about completely removing these modified genetics from our environment. All cross pollinated crops, all contaminated crops and let's not forget single plants that may have escaped their planting fields would all have to be destroyed. I'd love to hear the plan.

Some interesting observations. I think a couple of "obvious" comments need to be made here. First, this work costs money, therefore the first foci tended to be low hanging fruit (such as Bt to resist insects) where a profit immediately could be made in selling the variety as well as growing it. Who is going to fund work leading to non-commercialisable improvements?
Second, the point that few or none of these changes fundamentally "improve" productivity or yield is less obvious, but is the result of the fundamental biology. In nature, almost none of the "productivity" factors are the result of simple single gene changes. The overwhelming bases for these are huge complexes of scores or hndreds of genes working in synchrony. Traditional breeding HAS made great progress here in the last century, but the relationships involved are likely to elude GM approaches for many years, if ever.

The discussion of yield/productivity is an interesting one and I feel is an example of how science confuses their definitions with common ones. In 1995, while I was working for Northrup King in Golden Valley, the MN Dept of Ag determined that MN corn growers had lost $350 million that year due European Corn Borer (ECB) damage. The next year (1996) ECB resistant (by Bt) GM corn was introduced, the 4 to 6 yr ECB cycle was broken and in the article I noted above Hutchison et al determined that all (including non-GM) MN, WI and IL corn growers had realized a gain of $3.2 billion due to the introduction of Bt corn. My maize breeder friends claim that this is NOT an example of yield increase, but rather just "protecting" the yield that is inherent in the maize germplasm base. But to most people this would clearly be a productivity gain to which GM has provided a significant benefit.
With regard to low hanging GM fruit, there is so much of it I don't know where to start. MN is known for their apple varieties (e.g., Honeycrisp, Zestar) - why not add the Bt gene for apple maggot resistance and significantly reduce pesticide sprays? Most patents for these genes and other genetic elements are expired or shortly will be. Virus resistance - this is very easy by anti-sense and might event be considered not a pesticide by EPA - and might give the institution that develops it a patent (if considered ethically acceptable by them). MN Prof Voytas' TALENs could inactivate toxin and anti-nutrient genes present in most every "natural" food we eat (check out OECD Consensus documents for lists of these). So much to do of so much value that it seems a moral crime not to.

"Within a few years, multinational corporations had taken over India’s seed market in a number of major crops. Now only GM seeds are available at the shops, requiring India’s farmers to pay an annual royalty. The GM seeds are much more expensive; they need additional fertilizers and insecticides and must be re-purchased every season. While large farms have prospered, the majority of farmers find it increasingly more difficult to make a living off their land."

So let me get this straight: GM seeds are worse than the old seeds? So why are the farmers using them? Why not use the old seeds that they could save? Why isn't anyone selling the old seeds? Obviously the farmers should prefer to buy them instead of the GM seeds, right?

Unless Monsanto is somehow blocking anyone from using non-GM seeds, this argument is just absurd!

Mischa PopoffMar. 7th, 2014

Jon Foley should spend a year of his life working on an organic farm. Or on any farm for that matter. Then he'd embrace GMO crops like the overwhelming majority of farmers have here and in Europe.

Less technology = more work
MUCH more work.

LindaMar. 7th, 2014

What do "overwhelming consensus" & "overwhelming majority" really mean? I am struck by how the comments that use these terms are inconsistent with my own experiences with scientists, including research scientists in epigenetics & genetic engineering, & with farmers in the field. Lasso-ing a discussion with terms like that, terms that force someone to prove absence of "overwhelming consensus" or "overwhelming majority", is unproductive. All I can do when I read those terms is scratch my head, & state that there is an"overwhelming discrepancy" between how those terms are used in this discussion & what I am hearing & learning from people on the ground.

Re "overwhelming consensus" - Scientific findings are rarely absolute because it's the nature of science to evolve. What may have been "overwhelming consensus" yesterday is "demands further scrutiny" today. Any "overwhelming consensus" in support of GMOs is just a snapshot of an evolving issue.

Re "overwhelming majority" - I don't even know where to begin describing the times where "overwhelming majority" was used as a defense of some policy/issue, but segregation jumps out at me. Or how about the sun revolves around the earth. What weight does "overwhelming majority" really carry?

The overwhelming majority of mothers bottle-fed their babies after WW2. So? Not anymore. Our understanding of that issue evolved & so we changed our position.

I know a farmer in Iowa. I don't know if he's in some majority or not. Bt corn failed to produce the yield touted to him by the seed purveyors, & he lost money year after year after year. To top it off, his cows wouldn't eat the BT corn, when given a choice between that & conventional corn. I don't know what the science is behind this, but this does not strike me as being a good sign. Of course cows will eat Bt corn rather than starve. People will eat shoes before starving. But if cows won't eat Bt corn when given a choice, we should be taking a look at this, not forcing them to eat it. But, thanks to part of the patent protections written into these GM seed contracts, no one can test problems like this without the approval & oversight of the company that owns the patent. This, too, is not good, & hardly qualifies as "sound science". BTW, the industry that includes Syngenta, Monsanto, & Dow, use an industry PR strategy which they call the "sound science" strategy, which is simply an orchestrated campaign to destroy a professional reputation. This strategy has specific goals, & uses specific tactics to achieve those goals. You can witness this "sound science" strategy anytime a researcher produces results that call into question the safety of a GM product or companion chemical. The only reason I bring this up is because I used the term myself here, & don't want it confused with the PR strategy, which is anything BUT sound science.

Other farmers fed Bt corn to their pigs that then developed pregnancies that produced sacks of water & afterbirth but no piglets. When they switched their feed to conventional feed, these reproductive problems went away. It doesn't matter if this happened to an "overwhelming majority". It happened to farmers & should be scrutinized, but again, patent restrictions prevent science from being able to examine problems like this independently, outside of the industry with the patents.

Other farmers that fed Bt corn to their livestock experienced other equally disturbing health issues, mostly GI & blood, that went away when feed was switched. Let's take a look at this. Why does this happen? And why are some people in science outspokenly unwilling to consider looking at this, using claims of "overwhelming consensus" or the one I have never heard before this discussion: because global regulatory barriers erected by those who oppose GE technology are the only good reason that GMOs have not been widely embraced by consumers. Really? That claim simply takes my breath away.

What does "overwhelming majority" & "overwhelming consensus" have to do with these problems? Or better yet, how is "overwhelming" an excuse to not label GM foods & adopt the precautionary principle with this technology, so that we can begin to track these problems to discover what the heck is going on? For the record, an overwhelming number of consumers want GMO labeling on foods. If you're going to rely on "overwhelming" on one side of this issue, then it's gotta be good on the other.

More well-grounded scientific evidence is needed to inform the public debate about GE technology. The existence of an "overwhelming majority" is questionable, despite these long laundry lists of professional organizations that sign on to these "overwhelming majority" statements. We can look at each one of these statements from each one of these organizations & the one thing they will all have in common is cherry-picking in defense of their position. I haven't met an organization yet that doesn't do this, even & especially the ones with Ph.D.s in the sciences on their payrolls.

And what does "overwhelming majority" mean in a discussion like this? Group-think? An attempt to shame dissenters who may have different information that leads to different possible conclusions? It's possible that whatever embracing of GE technology in our food supply that has taken place so far is based on faulty premises, & there are a lot of faulty premises that prop up this technology in how it's being used by an industry to patent seeds & then profit from those patents on a level that is very competitive on Wall Street. We should be examining this technology, not claiming "overwhelming" whatever.

Mischa PopoffMar. 8th, 2014

Dear Linda:

First of all, I did not use the term "overwhelming consensus." And what I mean in referring to the "overwhelming majority" is the fact that when it comes to those who actually use from the science of biotechnology, there is near unanimity that they are beneficial.

It's time for people who don't work on farms to stop trying to tell farmers how to run their farms.

sfg yusufMar. 9th, 2014

GMO is robbing me of my origin. Am a man, naturally created and not a product of scientific manipulations

LindaMar. 9th, 2014

Mischa, I didn't expect that you would embrace anything that I wrote. I wrote it for other people who might have read your post, & others like it, & come away saying, "Really?!"

And yes, you used "overwhelming majority". Another commenter used "overwhelming consensus". Those terms still mean absolutely nothing.

I completely agree with you that it's time for people, including scientists, bureaucrats, & executives & lawyers who work for biotech/chem companies, to stop trying to tell farmers how to run their farms.

I heard yet another "non-majority" farmer speak last week about GE farming & GMOs at Natural Products Expo West 2014 in southern California, a farmer from northern Maine who's been farming organically for about 40 years & is a spokesperson for Osgata et al v. Monsanto: "We don't want their seed. We don't want their technology. We don't want their trespass onto our farms. We don't want their contamination of our seed, & we don't want to have to defend ourselves in court from a frivolous lawsuit asserting that we are infringing upon their patent because they have contaminated us as innocent victims." This court case turned out to be only a partial win for organic farmers, because the judge seemed incapable of truly understanding the problem that the 83 plaintiffs representing about 300,000 citizens in the US & Canada were expressing, but this will not be the end of farmers organizing to prevent powerful multinational corporations from patenting the world's seed supply & turning food production into a calorie-production system that benefits the bottom lines of biotech/chem companies.

Your assertion of "near unanimity" remains questionable, & reminds me of the near unanimous support for tobacco products before we became better-educated about that issue & were able to overcome the powerful moneyed interests in that industry promulgating all manner of claims about the benefits of their products. And while I think that GE technology holds exciting promise in how it may one day be used outside of patenting our seed supply to enrich biotech/chem companies, the industry's claims about decreased use of pesticides & increased yield have no scientific basis or basis in reality. And their claims of specific yield results, like drought-resistance, are no where close to ever being realized, since GE technology, as it's being used currently, has nothing to do with yield because specific yield characteristics are a result of a complex interplay between thousands of genes, a feat GE technology as it stands today shows no signs of addressing. (This I learned from a Ph.D. in soil biology who retired from a lifelong career in genetic engineering, & subsequently became informed about non-industry, non-US research that is being suppressed.)

Aside from the farming issues, there are many safety concerns about the impact of GMOs that need to be addressed outside of the industry profiting from this seed patenting process & aren't, like unintended effects that occur during the gene-shooting process, the safety of the companion chemicals that accompany GE crops (glyphosate, 2,4-D), the increased use of herbicides that are toxic to soil bacteria, the spread of antibiotic-resistant genes, & more.

GE farming is resulting in more, not less, harmful chemical concoctions in the environment. Imagine how differently farming might look had we thrown as much $$$ at sustainable practices inc. IWM & IPM as we have at this technology.

Also, re agricultural work - I live in an agricultural region. Farm workers don't mind hard work. Farmers & farm workers go into this business because they love the work & the lifestyle, not because they don't want to work hard. Multinational corporations that don't want to pay labor costs are who thinks hard work is a problem. Workers DO mind exposure to themselves & their families of toxic chemical concoctions that are being increasingly linked to health trends over the last 30 years, inc. digestive issues, immune dysfunction, autoimmune disorders, endocrine problems, & the quality/toxicity of milk in nursing mothers. Farmers & farm workers working hard is not a problem that needs help from the biotech/chem industry.

The movement that is being mischaracterized as anti-GMO is actually pro-labeling/pro-precautionary principle, with safeguards for farmers who don't want their fields exposed to GE seed drift.

A free market in a democratic, capitalistic society requires freely-flowing information. 9 out of 10 consumers consistently poll as wanting to know what's in our food, inc. GMOs. How is it that the biotech/chem industry gets a free pass on this basic American concept, gets to sneak their products into foods without labeling, & instead of explaining to consumers what it is they're producing & why people should purchase foods containing GMOs, pours millions of dollars into anti-labeling & lobbying efforts. How on earth is that business model deserving of our support in any way? We put water as an ingredient on food labels, but not GMOs. That is not because consumers shouldn't be informed of any GMOs in their food; it's because of lobbying.

Mischa PopoffMar. 9th, 2014

Dear sfg yusuf:
By all means my friend. Go live in nature. Everything we eat has been manipulated UN-naturally for thousands of years.

Lynne FinnertyMar. 10th, 2014

Yes, it would be nice if more biotech/agricultural research were publicly funded and conducted. However, research dollars are as much a victim of reduced federal funding as any other part of the budget. Private companies are picking up the slack, not just in agriculture and certainly not just in the area of biotech. For private companies to want to invest in this expensive research, there must be a large return on that investment. Governments and companies invest in research for very different reasons: public good v. profit motive. As the public either demands that Congress cut spending or allows Congress to devote less of the limited funding available to research, we get, frankly, the outcome for which we ask.

Also, regarding "patenting the world's seed supply," that's been going on for decades, long before biotech was an issue. That's a different, larger issue.

Finally, concerning labeling, there's nothing preventing food makers from labeling their products "GMO-free." In fact, many do so now. And products that are certified organic under USDA's certification standards must be GMO-free. The claim that consumers have no way of knowing simply is not true. If this were about consumer choice, the debate would be over. It's clearly about something else--taking away my choice to support biotechnology with my food dollar by applying a label that many consumers would misinterpret and reducing demand/market for those products. The sad part is that future biotech traits are likely to be much more beneficial to society then those in use today--something the author of the article claims to support. The research needed to create those new traits won't happen unless there's a market for them.

LindaMar. 10th, 2014

Mandatory labeling would increase consumer grocery bills by zero (Emory Univ. Law School), would make it easier for consumers who want to actively support the use of this technology in our food supply, would make it easier for consumers who want to actively avoid GMOs in our diets, & would force the biotech/chem industry to perform in a free, capitalistic market in a democratic society like every other industry should - by explaining to consumers what the benefits of their products are & then leaving it up to us in a free market to make that choice. Optional labeling laws are ridiculous.

Without clear standards enforced by regulatory agencies, those labels would be meaningless.

And hey, if this technology is such a gosh-darn wonderful way to provide food, then this enormously profitable industry will have no difficulty explaining to consumers why it's so gosh-darn wonderful, instead of spending 10s of millions of dollars on anti-labeling campaigns.

I can't think of a single reason why labeling isn't win/win for everyone concerned, unless of course there ARE problems with this technology that are being suppressed, in which case we all have a responsibility to face up to.

MetanoicMar. 10th, 2014

I'd love for any of the long winded GMO advocates posting here to explain how, in the event we needed to, how exactly do we get these modified genetics out of our soil, bodies, livestock and the ecosystem at large? Heck, let's take it a step further, why don't you go ahead and tell us how we can also get these modified genetics out of the bacteria living on our skin and in our guts? Ya' know the bacteria we co-evolved with for our entire known existence, the bacteria that have made and hopefully, if you fools don't have your way, can continue to make our existence possible.

Matter of fact I'd like for one pro GMO advocate to illustrate that they even have the slightest knowledge of genetics as it applies to bacteria.

There should be a long list of takers on my request...GMO advocates should know alot about bacterial genetics since much of GMO technology is based on what we've gleaned from soil bacteria and many of the chemicals you advocate the use of for these GMO crops kill said bacteria in mass. Surely you haven't come to a conclusion about something as important as GMO crop technology without an adequate understanding of the big G in your GMO....genetics.

Let's hear it!

Greg PrattMar. 11th, 2014

Jon Davis says "It's worse than all the conspiracy theories that drive the anti-vax movement. Just stop." Yet the article he cites quotes a researcher as saying, "“Blanket conclusions that the technology is a success or failure lack the right level of nuance. It’s an evolving story in India, and we have not yet reached a definitive conclusion.”

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, "More recently, in 2012 the ICAR and the CICR stated that for the first time farmer suicides could be linked to a decline in the performance of Bt cotton, and they issued an advisory stating that “cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” As of August 2012, technical experts appointed by the India Supreme Court have recommended a 10-year moratorium on all field trials of GM food, as well as the termination of all current trials of transgenic crops."

Mischa PopoffMar. 11th, 2014

Dear Metatonic:

Easy... the same way we take everything we've been developing over the centuries out of our soil, bodies, livestock and the ecosystem at large. We don't.

Tell me, how do you feel about the light bulb? Any idea how long it was tested to ensure it was perfectly safe?

LindaMar. 11th, 2014

Conflating GMOs with the light bulb is ridiculous.

MetanoicMar. 11th, 2014

Dear Mischa :

When you understand the differences in performing a safety evaluation of the function of a lightbulb vs. modifying the entire planetary genome, then we can have a productive conversation.

p.s. Not a word from you about genetics...as expected.

Mischa PopoffMar. 11th, 2014

Lord Walter Northbourne is one of the preeminent forefathers of the modern-day organic movement. And in 1931 he wrote the following words in defense of organic farming:

"If we waited for scientific proof of every impression before deciding to take any consequential action we might avoid a few mistakes, but we should also hardly ever decide to act at all. In practice, decisions about most things that really matter have to be taken on impressions, or on intuition, otherwise they would be far too late…. We have to live our lives in practice, and can very rarely wait for scientific verification of our hypotheses. If we did we should all soon be dead, for complete scientific verification is hardly ever possible. It is a regrettable fact that a demand for scientific proof is a weapon often used to delay the development of an idea."
(Source: Lord Walter Northbourne, Look to the Land, 1940, p. 31.)

If such reasoning was good enough to help launch the organic movement, then surely it’s good enough for the science of genetic engineering. Isn’t it?

Greg PrattMar. 11th, 2014

Here's a provocative quote from Michael Crichton's ‘Jurassic Park’ that speaks about the human relationship to science and technology: “But now science is the belief system that is hundreds of years old. And, like the medieval system before it, science is starting not to fit the world any more. Science has attained so much power that its practical limits begin to be apparent. Largely through science, billions of us live in one small world, densely packed and intercommunicating. But science cannot help us decide what to do with that world, or how to live. Science can make a nuclear reactor, but it cannot tell us not to build it. Science can make pesticide, but cannot tell us not to use it. And our world starts to seem polluted in fundamental ways---air, and water, and land---because of ungovernable science.”

Mischa PopoffMar. 11th, 2014

A couple of follow-up comments here...

First of all, there is no planetary genome. And as soon as you understand that, you'll begin to grasp the fact that we've been "playing" with individual plant and animal genomes for the better part of 13,000 years.

Second of all, no one's "Conflating" the light bulb with genetic engineering. I'm COMPARING the light bulb with genetic engineering.

JonMar. 11th, 2014

@Greg You are quoting from Wikipedia which is referencing a secret memo, which I can't find online, whose conclusions were rejected or simply ignored by India's crop science and ag ministers. See what I mean by a conspiracy theory?

JonMar. 11th, 2014

And here again, we should be careful about advocating limits to the choices that third world farmers can make. This study demonstrated that the adoption of Bt cotton led not only to an increase in income-- but an increase in CALORIES a family consumed. That's just how close to the edge of starvation these farmers are. It is hard for us, sitting pretty in the first world, to appreciate that.

First you compare GMO safety to lightbulb testing and now you've provided us with a ridiculously out of context quote from a man 51 years prior to the very first GMO plant (1982).

Seeing as how Mr. Northbourne was an avid follower of Rudolph Steiner, so much so that he modeled his estates agriculture on Mr. Steiners agricultural principles, and seeing as how Mr. Steiner was one of the early and immensely important proponents of biodynamic agriculture I would say that Northbourne would turn in his grave if he saw you using his words to support this rubbish.

Next time your going to quote someone in support of GMO's you might want to make sure they weren't a practicing biodynamic farmer.

I'm still waiting for even an ounce of genetic science out of you.

LindaMar. 11th, 2014

Mischa, cookie cutter rationalizations do not constitute reasoning or critical thinking, so the answer to your question is no.

Mischa PopoffMar. 12th, 2014

Dear Metanoic and Linda: It's entertaining to watch as you both try to rationalize Northbourne's words away. But the fact is he said them. And you can't change that.

Replace your pencil with a hoe for a week. It'll make you a better writer.

Greg PrattMar. 14th, 2014

For the record, the previous post from Greg with no last name was not me. Quetzal...that's the point, in many cases the old non-GMO seeds are becoming unavailable, and the only option in the marketplace is GMO seeds.

Greg PrattMar. 14th, 2014

I should also add that if a farmer's crop is pollinated by a nearby GMO crop, the seeds may contain genes that are the property of the GMO crop developer. Monsanto has sued to prevent farmers from planting such seeds, and in at least one notable case the company prevailed. This is a strong deterrent to saving seeds.

Mischa PopoffMar. 14th, 2014

Dear Greg Pratt:

I will never understand why people keep perpetuating this myth that Monsanto sues farmers just because their crop cross-pollinates with Monsanto's GMO seed. This has never happened.

What Monsanto does do is sue farmers - like Percy Schmeiser - who try to use Monsanto's GMO seed without paying for it. And please note, such farmers are not organic.

MetanoicMar. 14th, 2014

Mischa...

“we’ve been “playing” with individual plant and animal genomes for the better part of 13,000 years.”

Since you said the above in the context of supporting transgenic modification I feel it necessary to recommend you start by understanding the difference between transgenic modification and selective breeding.

Alternatively if you’d still like to make this your argument after understanding how transgenic modification differs, perhaps you can provide us with an example of ancient agriculturalists utilizing reductionist, selective genetics to transgenically modify differing species ?

Are you aware of our current understanding of interdependencies of genetic expression within a genome and it's respective genetic sets ? You cannot change just one gene without effecting many others and to be frank, we have absolutely NO IDEA what's going on. Fruit fly studies would be an excellent place to start.

My challenge stands. Still waiting to hear one GMO advocate back up their position with a genetics based scientific argument showing all of us naysayers that GMO is safe.

Mischa PopoffMar. 14th, 2014

Metanoic...

You fail to grasp what technology is all about my friend.

Of course transgenics is different from selective crop breeding. If it wasn't, what would be the point?

GMOs wouldn't represent an advancement over traditional crop breeding if GMOs were merely a new version thereof.

GMOs are a leap forward for farming, as well as for civilization. Welcome to the 21st century.

LindaMar. 14th, 2014

Metanoic, you will never get that argument from a pro-GMO advocate, because it's not part of their argument. The pro-GMO argument is based on: theory of what environmental/social achievements may at some future time be able to realize. And I'm not opposed to that at all. I support this kind of research. What I do not support is our over-reliance on industry profitability to fund research, which leads to premature commercialization of products before they have undergone rigorous, independent safety testing.

The pro-GMO argument is also based on "no evidence of harm", a very misleading claim, & one that, when used to support no labeling, is antithetical to the free market or to our democratic, capitalistic society. It doesn't take much thought to come up with a long list of approved, commercialized products that were then withdrawn from the market after they had given those consumers who test-drove it serious health conditions, or in many cases killed them.

The argument's also based on claims of "overwhelming scientific consensus", a claim that many scientists & science organizations vigorously dispute. This argument has become a sheer numbers game in the minds of some, with people posting links to all their in-agreement organizations followed by other people posting links to not-in-agreement organization/researchers/physicians/et al, with no substantive discussion of what kinds of considerations went into those endorsements. We're all just supposed to trust that organizations that are inarguably very political are looking out for consumer interests. Poppycock.

Re the Precautionary Principle vs. Evidentiary Action argument - The problem with EA is that it potentially comes too late. PP addresses the problem of limitations of controlled experiments to reveal complexity of real world conditions & outcomes, & the effect (both local & systemic) of releasing new material in the ecology.

Pro-GMOers consistently attack labeling advocates as overreacting to small probabilities, but they are completely overlooking how we humans are historically & famously very good at underestimating consequences. We do this over & over & over again, & in fact, it's widely believed that the only way we learn anything is by our mistakes. The problem with this particular aspect of our humanness is that consequences in the ecological domain can have large & unpredictable consequences that have no characteristic scale.

Supporting the PP in defense of GMO-labeling is not an overreaction, & waiting for EA does seem to be irrational given humanity's very poor record historically in understanding the risks of innovations in biological products, everything from misestimated risks of biofuels, to transfat, to nicotine, to Thalidomide, to Fen-Phen, to Tylenol, to Vioxx, to a long list of a variety of products based on new technology.

Mischa PopoffMar. 14th, 2014

You might be surprised to learn that the organic industry is also based on the premise of "no evidence of harm", the difference being that while no one has ever fallen ill, much less died, from consuming GMOs, many people have sadly succumbed to illness and death after consuming negligently-produced certified-organic food.

This is why I promote the concept of field testing in the organic industry; to make it safer, and to ensure organic practitioners are all following the rules. You know... kind of like GMO farmers do.

Don Yule, CEO CTF SolutionsMar. 15th, 2014

Jonathon Foley offered ideas that could impact on the big issues like feeding the population, but descended into a reductionist discussion about GMOs. We need to promote the desperate need for systems thinking approaches to our problems. We used this approach to a develop new farming system. Step 1 was to understand that farming systems involve the farmer and the farmer, the farming system is everything the farmer does. That simple idea ensures engagement, and the goals are clear outcomes that the farmer and the community want to achieve. Too easy, this is common sense, how humans basically think. But. I don't know any education or training institution that bases its whole delivery on system thinking. we are all educated in reductionist thinking.
An alternate example of systems thinking is how Bill Gates selects projects to fund. He avoids group thinking at all costs. He selects a group of people to assess projects, sends the applications to each individual for scoring, and then funds any project that scores a 1, i.e. assessed as the best project by an individual.
Systems thinking, like common sense, is easy, relevant, efficient and effective.

William PilacinskiMar. 15th, 2014

I'm not sure how this impacts the reductionist argument (actually, I'm not even sure what the reductionist argument is that invalidates GM research or their products) but it probably is important to recognize the Bill Gates and his foundation supports and is developing GM crops for underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia.

LindaMar. 15th, 2014

I'm not sure what relevance the reductionist argument has currently in the public discussion of GMOs. I can understand its implications in research, but once science releases a new technology into lay society, it's up to the citizens to decide how it will be implemented & what its parameters will be. In a free market, democratic, capitalistic society, it is science's job to present the public with all the facts about a new technology, before commercializing the technology. In the case of GMOs & the biotech/chem industry, this has not happened. Instead, this industry has greased its commercial pipelines, withheld information that questions its products' safety, & spent millions to prevent states from passing labeling laws, something that 9 out of 10 citizens want.

Richard Feynman laid it all out nicely: "Tell what’s true but…make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind.” Feynman was very clear that controlling technology “is something not so scientific and is not something that the scientist knows so much about.”

Labeling is not a science issue; scientific principles are not the determinants for labeling. Citizens have a right to know what's in our food & how it was produced, & are demanding that the biotech/chem industry, the current commercial controllers of this technology, be forced to adopt transparency & to compete in the free market as capitalism intends competition to be.

Research needs to not be reductionist. And in the case of how this technology is being controlled, & how the biotech/chem industry's PR machine currently operates, the information being doled out to citizens about this technology & its products has been distributed in a very reductionist manner, & citizens are waking up to this sorry state of affairs.

I admire Bill Gates greatly, & deeply respect the work of the Gates Foundation. Again, though, Gates is one person, with a lot of money, & the Gates Foundation is run by another one of these panels of individuals who are selected to be on the panel for all kinds of reasons unbeknownst to the rest of us & that have political implications.

The issue of how to implement the bioengineering of our food supply is now in the court of public opinion, where it should be. I can understand why some people in the sciences don't want it to be there, but you'll have to relocate to a different kind of society, one that is not free market & democratic, in order to operate outside of this court of public opinion.

The debate continues. But the debate is now reductionist, to counterbalance the suppression of the public's right to understand where this technology came from, & who's controlling it. It's now a campaign issue, where citizens choose sides & fight for whatever they want, labeling, or suppression, or whatever.

LindaMar. 17th, 2014

FYI - Laura Ipsen, corporate vice president of Microsoft Corp.'s Worldwide Public Sector organization, is on Monsanto's Board of Directors.

Good article but missing some important details. We didn't dive into the science of GM products which has a lot of questions attached to it. Some studies indicate harm and people are saying that it makes them sick. Countries have banned these products for a variety of reasons and yet the companies who sell them try to force their business on others through legal action. What a different time we live in when you can sue those who would be your customers if they choose not to buy your product. Personally I choose not to buy any GM products and feel that my health benefits from my choice. Another issue with this technology comes from unwanted contamination. Patents on the seeds of these products really expose the real reason behind the drive to force this on all economies. It is about absolute control of an essential market. Not good.

Hi Greg, thanks for posting this. It gives me an opportunity to do some back of the envelope calculations and I love those. The paper you cited reports finding 3.3 mg/kg glyphosate on GM soybeans. Sounds worrisome, compared to no glyphosate on organic soybeans, right?

Well, 3.3 mg/kg is 3.3 PPM. EPA recently raised the limit of glyphosate residue on soy from 20 PPM to 40 PPM, well above 3.3 PPM Why? Glyphosate is not very toxic.

How non-toxic? The LD50 of glyphosate is 5000 mg/kg. The LD50 of caffeine is 125 mg/kg. So that means that caffeine is 40x as toxic as glyphosate. And how much caffeine do we harvest in coffee beans. Caffeine is at least 1% of the dry weight coffee beans (actually 1-4%). So that it is 10,000 PPM.

So there is about 3000x as much caffeine as glyphosate in these respective beans, and caffeine is 40x as toxic. And we extract caffeine (a natural insecticide) and drink it every day. So now, do you think anyone should be worried about 3.3 mg/kg glyphosate, as reported?

Hopefully someone will double check my back of the envelope math and tell me if I am wrong.

Do you think biotech companies don't have their hands in LD50 determinations ?

LindaApr. 3rd, 2014

Looking at one commercialized product's contribution to environmental glyphosate overlooks the wider problem of repeated, ongoing exposure to multiple products, as well as how these toxins interact, build up in the environment & in the body, & the progression of their impact, both in the body & in the environment. We can, however, observe complex, unexplained health problems in the general US population that can be increasingly linked to this repeated, ongoing, multiple-interaction exposure. Labeling will allow for traceability & accountability, something that the biotech/chem industry should welcome as, according to their PR teams, this could support their industry insistence that GMOs & GE agriculture are safe.

Greg PrattApr. 3rd, 2014

I would like to comment on your toxicological analysis, Jon. First off, using the LD50 as a measure of toxicity is not considered a health protective method. There are virtually always non-lethal endpoints that can be of importance. In addition, the toxicity of glyphosate can be dependent on the formulation and on the presence of other components like surfactants that are commonly added. A brief search will turn up several studies showing other effects of glyphosate at lower (and sometimes much lower) levels (e.g., http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-012-0804-8).

However, the toxicity is not the most important point for me. GMO advocates say that GMO products are no different from non-GMO products. The study I cited demonstrates that that conclusion is not justified in this case (and probably not in many other cases if we look carefully). So if I buy an unlabeled GMO product, it may contain things that I do not wish to consume, but my freedom to choose has been constrained without the label.

Many people are sensitive to caffeine, but they are able to choose products without caffeine because they are informed by labelling.

GMOs are unavoidable. The sooner the public can appreciate that fact, we can move on to more serious issues. It may also be worthwhile to note that you make arguments against GMOs budget-breaking approach, but don't offer an insight into a viable solution.

For instance, the golden rice debate - Can crops high in naturally-occurring vitamin A grow in the climates where vitamin A deficiencies run rampant? And can they be grown efficiently enough to be worthwhile?

When opponents argue that GMOS are unsafe, I may argue that microwaves have been around 50 years, and we haven't extensively studied those. just a thought to leave with.

Pankaj GaurApr. 12th, 2014

Interesting article and nice discussion over all the points in the article. GM crops are just the one way of overcoming the increasing demand of food for growing population (if it really helps). What needs to be assessed is the pros and cons of these crops. If benefits outweigh the harmful effects, certainly we will have to give it a thums up, since it may be the need of the hour. Multinationals will always try to get best of their investment on anything they develop, but their impacts on people and planet as whole has to weighed before executing it. Till now no strong evidence has been listed against the bad effects of these crops, but since we are using it mainly for cattle feed, the effects on humans have to be seen over a period of time. Moreover it can not be discarded that while we use GM crops for restricting one weed/insect to reduce its effect on yield, others emerge out more ferociously, again increasing cost of pesticides. GE should rather work on increasing efficiency of the crops to produce more food from the same limited resources by more photosynthesis (if it can be done, as I am not a scientist). This will not eradicate the naturally present vegetation/insects, and will not impact the food web, as made by the nature.

Dennis Laughton P.AgApr. 29th, 2014

I agree that GMO's have not increased yield BUT they have protected the yield that the plant has been bred to produce. They have reduced the use of soil and topical applied pesticides. One of the problems the crop protection industry has always had to deal with is "non target application" in other words drift and in the case of soil leaching.
With the resistance built into the plant those problems are greatly reduced.
The other feature is "water use efficiency", again yield is being protected in seasons when rainfall is less than adequate.
I worked for several years with a seed potato company that was developing a Late Blight resistant potato. In more humid parts of the country potatoes can be sprayed every 7 - 10 days to keep this disease under control. The same groups that protest the application of pesticides protested the use of GMO potatoes and turned the major sellers of French fries against this new technology. We still spray potatoes!!

William PilacinskiApr. 29th, 2014

Per "GM crops are just one way", please describe the other ways that could significantly increase the amount of food produced, without significantly increasing the amount of land put to the plow, and could be feasibly implemented.

Donald E. LewisMay. 1st, 2014

I have found over the years that how the soil is prepared for planting is the best way to get the maximum plant growth and to control insects and disease The promotions that comes from the USDA and the Chemicals Companies (Monsanto) benefits them more than the Farmers and Humanity. Shallow till and heavy equipment with water soluble chemical fertilizer is ruining our fertile soil. Plant roots are the foundation of healthy plants. The roots have to be able to grow. Shallow till limits them to grow through the hard pans to reach miner and trace minerals for the plants health. The soil has to be porous and able to breathe for Nitrogen and Oxygen to be captured and held in the soil. I get all my nitrogen for plants from 78% in the atmosphere. Oxygen is for the life in the soil also. When there is no Organic matter in the soil this process is stopped. Chemical fertilizer burns up the Organic matter and is just a plant stimulant. The plants are prone to insects and disease and the more and different chemicals developed do end up in the food supply.

I have a reason to believe that Organic Farming and Gardening versus Chemicals is the only way to save our fertile soil. Fertile soil without chemicals grows Healthy plants that pass Healthy food up the food chain for Healthy Humans and Animals. I was Farming the Conventional way (Chemical). I experimented in 1950 doing Organic and Chemicals together. For three years I did both together and two experiments that convinced me that Organic was Superior and changed completely to Organic in 1953. In 1958 I won many awards in contests in Vermont and New England over hundreds of Chemical Farmers I wrote a Book “Learned by the Fencepost”-- Lessons in Organic Farming and Gardening -- published in 2011. I wrote it so any lay person can understand it. My Education was on the Dairy Farm in Vermont. The Book can be reviewed on Amazon and Kindle by typing the Title on Google. I would like to hear from you. I enjoyed writing it, as I was encouraged to do so, before my procedures were lost.
I have been very pleased with response where other Farmers and Gardeners have read my book or used the similar procedures I have. All have said their soil continues to get better every year and produces more and better produce. Chemicals make for an impressive stimulated plant, but do nothing to build up the fertile soil. Instead the acid chemicals burn up the carbon (Organic Matter) in the soil and release it as CO2. Soil without Organic Matter is dirt without life.

"" I used herbicide in 1949 and never again as I saw a problem with it on the soil. I approached my Agronomist about a problem of killing the life in the soil that was not visible. I did not believe him then and I was right.It is showing up in peoples blood stream and mothers breast milk. It is a hormone and and can change some DNA.This is my view and just logic.
This has happened mostly in the last thirty years as herbicide is being used heavier and heavier.

"" I feel the same way about GMO'S as I did about Herbicides that it will be another failure and cause many causalities in humans and life as the Master planned it. I relate Monsanto to Bonnie and Clyde robbing banks as that was where the money is. Monsanto and all the Chemicals companies are Greed over Humanity They are robbing our fertile soil and causing many many illnesses doing so.

I realize that I am going to be accused of just wanting to make money on the Book. I wish but it will never happen. What I am hoping to do is make everyone aware that if just a fraction of the effort and money was put into saving our fertile soil as into Global Warming it could happen. Our waterways would be free of pollution and the environment would be cleaner. Monsanto is the Master at influencing by observation and untruthful results that are visible. There is hardly any discussion about roots that are the foundation of healthy plants that can ward of insects and disease. How the soil is prepared for planting and keeping it porous so it can breathe is the answer. The biggest harm acid chemicals do is to the invisible below the surface of the soil where all the root growth should not be restricted. My facts I have observed are the hair roots are the scouts that search and supply the trace minerals to make the plants healthy and ward of insects and disease. Roots are not needed with water soluble chemical fertilizer, but it does make the chemical companies rich. --- Fertile Soil is the Lifeblood of the Earth and all Food comes from the Soil ----Food and Health in this Order.

I appreciates all the positives. When I started in 1950 it was a different story.
Thankyou

LindaMay. 10th, 2014

Where is the actual evidence that supports this oft-repeated need to "significantly increase the amount of food produced?" We need to focus on distributing the food we are already producing to ameliorate the immediate problems of malnutrition & starving, while focusing on long-term goals to support communities to grow as much of their food as possible while leaving the lowest impact carbon footprint.

We have been waiting since the 1980s for the biotech/chem industry to make good on their promises to decrease the use of toxic agricultural chemicals & the impact on climate change that the path of these products leaves behind. It's been over 2 decades now since the commercialization of their products, & what we've got is an increased use of these products coupled with a steeper climate change curve. And now we're actually considering commercializing & releasing 2,4-D-resistant seeds, because the glyphosate-resistant seeds are losing their intended effects.

Also, no where on the horizon is there any indication that GE crops will "increase yield" or that the industry will be able to bioengineer "drought resistance" into their patented seeds. So far, they've given us a system that forces farmers to repurchase their seeds year after year, while also purchasing the companion chemicals that are needed to grow them.

The only gain to be made by significantly increasing the amount of food produced is to be had by the agribusiness industry's bottom line. No one else benefits, while environmental impact/degradation increases. I actually read a PR piece by one company representative in the biotech/chem industry a few days ago in which he touted the industry's contribution economically to the environmental clean-up industry (more jobs, the need for more clean-up technology). That was a jaw-dropping moment for me. It is a sorry day indeed when a critical mass of the world's developed, educated people cannot see the problem with this line of thinking.

Also, it strikes me as hugely absurd that we simply accept that the way to address an exponentially-growing world population, a problem that intensifies its sister-problem of world hunger, is to genetically engineer more food to feed them. Honestly, is that the best we can come up with?!

JonMay. 11th, 2014

Linda,

It sounds like you know a little about global agriculture. I can try to address your questions. Improvements in plant breeding like GM crops enable farmers to grow more food where they are. They don't need food to be shifted around from the first world as if they were begging for scraps at your table. Increases in agricultural production locally is a cornerstone of economic development leading to greater participation in market economies, more money for food and education and so on.

GM crops have resulted in a 35% decline in insecticide use globally. They have also led to increases in Roundup use globally, but Roundup is not very toxic at all and promotes reduced tillage which conserves soil. So, on balance, GM crops are a boon to the environment, especially soil biota.

So right now, the use of GM crops is keeping yields high by reducing toxic and expensive inputs, which improves upon the great yield increases of the Green Revolution. For this reason, it is even more suitable to be extended to farmers in the third world as well as the first, and to small farmers as well as large.

Compelling products in the pipeline are virus resistant cassava that use a similar mechanism as virus resistant papaya in Hawaii. Cassava is a climate resilient staple crop for millions of the world's poorest subsistence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa whose food security is endangered by a spreading epidemic from Kenya and Uganda west.

Your views of the population problem are sort of stuck in the 70s-- when people who didn't understand the causes of population growth warned against trying to help these populations feed themselves. Population growth occurs because death rates fell due to improvements in health and sanitation fell before the cultural shift towards having few children. What compels people to make this shift? Greater wealth, education and social mobility that comes from economic development that is rooted in agricultural innovation that saves labor and decreases yield losses, etc.

When I see first world citizens, who have abundant wealth and food security, criticize technology that is safe, environmentally beneficial and promotes economic development for the world's poorest, I just have to shake my head.

And it is because these elite first-worlders know just a little about global agriculture.

JonMay. 11th, 2014

Lemme try this again.

Linda, GM is merely a tool in the plant breeder's toolkit that can achieve what you seek in the first paragraph-- boosting yields locally while minimizing the expensive and environmentally damaging inputs of water, nitrogen, insecticides, tillage, capital and land.

We don't need to focus on distributing food we already produce. The third world shouldn't be begging for scraps at the table of the first work. We need to focus on promoting local agricultural productivity. Improved seeds is one mechanism to do this.

Agbiotech companies have already delivered on their promise to reduce pesticides-- they have reduced insecticide applications by 35% .

Forcing farmers to buy new seed began with hybrid corn. And most of the useful innovation in GMOs like Golden Rice and virus resistant cassava will be distributed for free and without license to the world's poorest subsistence farmers.

And sorry but your last paragraph seems inhumane. Do you even know the cause of exponentially-growing world population? Ever heard of the demographic transition? Populations grow when there is a lag between wonderfully declining death rates and the cultural transition to lower birth rates. What enables this is education, economic opportunities in the city, and the political and economic autonomy of women won with economic development. Agricultural innovation is the bedrock of economic development and new seeds play a vital role in catalyzing it, now as in the Green Revolution.

LindaMay. 12th, 2014

Jon, again, "boosting yields locally while minimizing the expensive and environmentally damaging inputs of water, nitrogen, insecticides, tillage, capital and land" is an industry promise that hasn't been kept, nor is there any indication that it will ever be kept under the current system that supports GE farming.

The distribution of existing food is not about throwing scraps at developing countries. The UN recently released a very thorough report that debunks that myth.

The claim that agribusiness has decreased pesticide use is disingenuous & incomplete. Replacing pesticides with herbicides hardly qualifies as something to boast about. Plus, overall application of agricultural chemicals has increased significantly since the commercialization of GMOs.

Anyone who seriously believes that multinational biotech/chem corporations plan to distribute foods for free with nothing in return is living in a state of denial.

It is NOT inhumane to question the motivations of these same corporations that profess to want to "feed the world", using photo ops of starving children to promote a technology that is simply not delivering higher yields or specific traits like drought-resistance, while increasing the use of very dangerous chemicals that lack the resources we have to address the resulting problems - polluted water, cancers, Parkinsons, kidney failure, die-offs of pollinators, farmers becoming indentured servants to the biotech/chem industry, amphibians with confused sex alterations, etc. etc. etc.

The real Green Revolution will not be the one envisioned by the revenue interests of the multinational biotech/chem/pharma industry. It will be a paradigm shift in how we collectively grow & distribute food, with the goal being to maintain food as a source of social, cultural, & physical health, & not another commodity to be exploited globally.

JonMay. 12th, 2014

Sorry about the double-post earlier-- this page was not updating for me.

Linda, I understand your views. I've heard 'em many times. But I didn't expect you to swing so wide that you are making such scurrilous claims as GM foods or glyphosate cause Parkinson's. The Seneff hypotheses are widely ridiculed.

I think the most important point is that no one is trying to ban agroecology or whatever you advocate. In my case, I partner with ecologists and organic ag advocates to create curriculum materials in agriculture that extend useful methods from these domains.

But there is a large contingent of first world activists who are working to ban a GMOs-- a technology with documented benefits, against the wide scientific consensus of safety. These activists are the climate-deniers of the left. That was the subject of my first post-- those who aim to ban this technology, reducing farmer choice, are the real reductionists.

Jon, I will add this to the mix, since you're certainly entitled to hold a different opinion than mine, but you're not entitled to your own facts about the links between glyphosate & many health problems.

“Monsanto & these other companies are doing an exceptionally good job at blocking all information & data on the subject [of the health effects of RoundUp/glyphosate) from public discourse,” stresses Dave Schubert, professor & head of the Salk Institute’s Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory.

“There is indeed an enormous amount of published data showing that Roundup [glyphosate] is very nasty stuff, particularly at the levels currently being used (10x more than before genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops) & the extent of human exposure in food—a greatly allowed increase by the EPA to reflect increased use.”

So much for your accusations of my being "scurrilous".

Donald E. LewisMay. 30th, 2014

I started Organic Dairy Farming in 1950. I can not accept anything Chemical on the fertile soil. I can out produce any chemical stimulated plant. My logic feed the plants as they need it. Organic does this. Chemicals are stimulates and overload the plants with water soluble NPK and most of it ends up in the water ways. Many other problems are caused by chemicals.

I have found over the years that how the soil is prepared for planting is the best way to get the maximum plant growth and to control insects and disease. Promotions that come from the USDA and Chemicals Companies benefit them more than the Farmers and Humanity. Shallow till and heavy equipment with water soluble chemical fertilizer is ruining our fertile soil. Plant roots are the foundation of healthy plants. The roots have to be able to grow. Shallow till limits them to grow through the hard pans to reach miner and trace minerals for the plants health. The soil has to be porous and able to breathe for Nitrogen and Oxygen to be captured and held in the soil. I get all my nitrogen for plants from the 78% in the atmosphere. The nitrogen available from the atmosphere combined with oxygen provides the life needed in the soil. When there is no Organic matter in the soil this process is stopped. Chemical fertilizer burns up the Organic matter and is simply a plant stimulant. The plants are prone to insects and disease and the vast amount of different chemicals developed end up in the food supply.

I have a reason to believe that Organic Farming and Gardening versus Chemicals is the only way to save our fertile soil. Fertile soil without chemicals grows Healthy plants that pass Healthy food up the food chain for Healthy Humans and Animals. I was Farming the Conventional way (Chemical). I experimented in 1950 doing Organic and Chemicals together. For three years I did both together and two experiments that convinced me that Organic was Superior and changed completely to Organic in 1953. In 1958 I won many awards in contests in Vermont and New England over hundreds of Chemical Farmers
I wrote a book “Learned by the Fencepost”-- Lessons in Organic Farming and Gardening -- published in 2011. I wrote it so any lay person can understand it. My Education was on the Dairy Farm in Vermont. The Book can be reviewed on Amazon and Kindle by typing “Learned by the Fencepost” on Google. The Book is easy to read with several pictures explaining techniques learned from observation, logic and a good memory. I have been told it is easy to understand and I explain why I did things for my soil, like the Master taught us. My two experiments I did in 1952 are in the book, and cost nothing for myself as well as the taxpayers. I would like to hear from you. I enjoyed writing it, as I was encouraged to do so, before my procedures were lost.
I have been very pleased with response where other Farmers and Gardeners have read my book or used the similar procedures I have. All have said their soil continues to get better every year and produces more and better produce. Chemicals make for an impressive stimulated plant, but do nothing to build up the fertile soil. Instead the acid chemicals burn up the carbon (Organic Matter) in the soil and release it as CO2. Soil without Organic Matter is dirt without life. What I am hoping to do is make everyone aware that if just a fraction of the effort and money was put into saving our fertile soil as other programs, it could happen. Our water ways would be free of pollution and the environment would be cleaner. Monsanto is a master at influencing by observation and untruthful results that are visible. There is hardly any discussion about roots that are the foundation of healthy plants that can ward of insects and disease. How the soil is prepared for planting and keeping it porous so it can breathe is the answer. The biggest harm acid chemicals do is to the invisible below the surface of the soil where all the root growth should not be restricted. My facts I have observed are the hair roots are the scouts that search and supply the trace minerals to make the plants healthy and ward of insects and disease. Roots are not needed with water soluble chemical fertilizer, but it does make the chemical companies rich. --- Fertile Soil is the Life Blood of the Earth and all Food comes from the Soil ----Food and Health in this Order.
.

t

waddiloveAug. 14th, 2014

This is to date the best argument and synopsis on GMOs that I have read; its true that we need to look at the existing production systems, analyse them critical and identify the major factors limiting production, and then integrate GMO systems into them. There are some naturally occuring modified crops, but the genes that cause modification maybe recessive and will need special breeding systems to ensure they can be multiplied e.g. Quality Protien Maize(QPM), a maize type high on protein but naturally occurring; alot of work has already been done using the natural breeding methods to improve its performance in the field, such a crop is what would need to be integrated in existing production systems to fight malnutrition etc. So thank you again for re-visiting this argument and challenging GMO scientists to consider incorporating multi-dimensional science.

I personally don't like the concept of genetically modifying living things in the synthetic way it's being done. Better, traditional methods instead, encourage plants to modify themselves (breeding) employing the hard won "wisdom" of billions of years of brutally honest trial and error (evolution) which includes co-evolution with our species. We aren't smart enough to know how to use this powerful GE technology and it seems to me like about the worst idea since leaded gasoline (which had to be made illegal because its pollution was so harmful).
But GEing is done by people who are not trying to cause harm. And to confront their efforts by trying to get them to see themselves or their efforts as bad will probably never work. As difficult as it is, I must try to accept that some amicable process is the only way to enlist their co-operation and then otherwise channel the energies yielded from my disgust at their endeavors, and my rage at their arrogant presumption and insidious domination.
Equally difficult will be to make them see that they really don't know what they are doing. They seem to have no qualms about their own ignorance of human health, nutritional, or the intricacies of the environment while they charge ahead with actions that permanently impact the very fabric of life on Earth. There must be some configuration of their virtues that will enable them to join in the preservation of what is vital and special about our planet.

A conference was held in Seattle in October 2014 during which many of the GMO issues discussed here in Jon Foley's article & in the many comments that follow it were discussed by speakers from Africa - scientists, farmers, researchers, citizens. It's one thing to be here in the US & have a lively debate on this topic with other people in the US. It's a whole other thing to listen to those who live in countries that are impacted by US agricultural policies, the Gates Foundation, Monsanto, & other organizations.

The longer I follow the work of the Gates Foundation, the more I question their work - not their intentions, which we could never truly know, but the actual deeds they fund & how those deeds are being received by the people whose problems the Gates Foundation's funding is attempting to address.

I strongly recommend these 3 videos of this October Seattle conference.

Here are some quotes that I pulled from this conference that jumped out at me, & that I hope will entice more people in the US to watch these conference videos.

"I want to use this opportunity to thank my host ... when I got into their home, the first thing he asked me was, "What do you want to eat?" ... They choose to ask me what I want & to make me comfortable. Gates Foundation, Monsanto, & their allies are not asking us that question. They are coming to Africa & telling us what they think we want. If you want to help me, if I say I am cold, don't give me ice cream. Give me coats. Don't decide for me. This question is not being asked, & we feel really insulted. They are coming & destroying our diets."

"Who is US agriculture policy really benefiting? ... The issue of the vitamin A banana in Uganda ... I'm Ugandan, this is my staple food ... Bananas are everything to us - food, culture. We do a lot with bananas - we brew alcohol from them, we do ceremonies around them, marriage, funeral rites ... Who is this [banana] project benefiting, who gets its funding? It is targeting increasing vitamin A consumption for young children, & in my culture young children don't like bananas ... so this project doesn't speak to them ... children learn to eat bananas when they are 7 or 8 or 9. So if you're bringing a project to address children under 5 years, & you're putting in all this money, & you do not understand how this food is consumed, well then you might as well throw that money into a ditch."

"[International corporations] are very influential with our African governments to the extent that they are pushing for policies that do not support our indigenous-knowledge family systems. They are also promoting the GMOs. GMOs are flooding to our continent. Does that mean that we Africans don't know what to do with our own resources? They're coming to grab our natural resources. We are not benefiting from our natural resources from Africa. But these corporations are coming to grab our land, take our diamonds, our gold, other resources ... the way they are trying to influence our African governments to grow crops which are for biofuels - not food."

"And what is that which we should all think about doing together? ... The fight we are fighting we are going to fight together. We have to strengthen our resilience together. We need to build the capacity of our farmers, our peasants, so that we are able at the end of the day to stand in front of - what is this big organization that we are talking about? - the Gates Foundation. What is Gates Foundation? All the farmers should be able to stand & voice, to protect our rights. We really want to control our land, to control our to produce the healthy food the way we want. Not for someone else to come & tell us to produce food ... We know what we want."

There is a great deal packed into this conference that Americans need to know. Our self-focus on our own "do-goodliness" may be enabling something that is anything BUT good.

LindaJan. 17th, 2015

Sorry. Forgot to paste the links into the above comment.

http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/438457

http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/437759

http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/443897

JonJan. 18th, 2015

Linda, any farmer can always grow what they want. The Gates Foundation provides another option.

However, the unscientific, alarmist discourse on GMOs from the first world has caused many African governments to ban GMOs over the advice of their own scientists. Then they are longer an option.

Donald E. LewisJan. 19th, 2015

I am pleased that Vermont is taking a stand for labeling GMO’S. There are other chemicals that are very harmful as well. I feel Monsanto is taking the soil to the point of no return. I just hope that all States will recognize the dangers.
My theme: ----- Fertile Soil is the Life Blood of the Earth and all food comes from the Soil--- Food and Health in this Order. ------Monsanto has ruined the Health of the Soil. The Health of our plants, the Health of the Humans and Animals in the world is declining. It is Greed over Humanity.
Eighty years ago chemical fertilizer was introduced my Monsanto. Before this all crops were grown by the Organic method. This was not recognized as such. It was the natural way of growing the world’s food. Monsanto took advantage of the visible appearance of the plants when stimulated by the chemicals. It was sold to the Farmers as the way to produce more and feed the growing population.
** In the 1940’s it started with super 20% phosphate made with treating rock phosphate with sulfuric acid. The stimulant made for an impressive plant above ground and killed earthworms and life below. Lime had to be added to raise the PH.
** Next came all three nitrogen, phosphate and potash (NPK) with all different formulated amounts. They are very acid and killers of natural life in the soil. The big three are all water soluble and 100% available to the plants over riding trace minerals that the plants need for good health.
** Next was herbicides (a growth hormone) to kill weeds that were promoted by the chemical fertilizer. Now weeds are immune to the herbicides that farmers never had before. In 1952 the Vermont State Agronomist in a farmers meeting was promoting herbicide. I said it was dangerous to the soil as I had a problem with one year in 1949. He said in 6 to 7 weeks it dissipates. I said how do you know and he did not. It is found in human blood and Mothers breast milk.
** Now stronger insecticides to fight off insects and new ones come along all the time. Insects attack unhealthy plants that are caused by the chemical stimulation. The method used for preparing the soil for planting is wrong and started forty years ago. Tillers and no till does not permit the roots to get trace minerals that make plants healthy. This is called the survival of the fittest.
** All residues from the chemicals that the Farmers are overloaded with over time, accumulates in the soil are picked up by the plants and passed up the food chain over a period of time. My theory (now becoming factual) this can cause many of the illnesses today. Cancer is not controlled and gets more serious all the time. Children’s, autisms and cancer is on the rise. Adult heart attacks and strokes are increasing. There is more and more women with breast cancer out of control.
** This brings us to GMO’S and it is only 20 years that 80% of all corn planted. Genetically Modified Organisms are all Chemical Laboratory developed by injecting seeds or covering them with their potent substance. Who knows what it is. The seeds are now a choice for the farmers. For two hundred dollars they can purchase 50 pounds of seeds with just GMO or for 400 dollars you can buy seeds with weed control and insect control. This plants two acres and the seeds can-not be saved for planting from the crop. Monsanto is in control and has been for 80 years. I do not agree with crossing plant genes with animal. One thing the Scientist missed is the root rot is a big problem. Tumors showing up in beef animals and some are in the food supply. Not sent to the customers but cut out before going to them.
I was an FFA member in Woodstock , Vermont Chapter President for four years and State President in 1946. I attended the National Convention in 1946 as Vermont’s representative. I Received the American Farmers Degree in 1947. It was a great honor that I will never forget.
I went into Partnership with my Father and Brother in 1946. I did the Farm work and they ran the saw mill. In 1949 I used herbicide one year for weed kill on the corn field. My homemade sprayer put too much on the ends of the rows which left a quarter moon shape area nothing grew for years after. I never again used it. I did Organic and Chemical together for three years. Also some simple experiments that proved to me Organic was superior to chemicals. Went totally Organic in 1953 and never used chemical fertilizer or herbicide and insecticide again. In 1958 I won many awards in Vermont and New England over thousands of chemical using Dairy Farmers.
I had two facts that Organic was superior to chemicals in the 1950’s. The 1958 New England in Winter Green Pastures Contest I won with my Jersey Herd over thousands of Farmers. Won Hay awards at the Vermont Farm Show with 99.7 and 99.5 points out of 100 three years in a row. Would not Judge it the fourth year and threw It out.
My two facts and many theories have turned to all facts and I can debate any Agriculture advisers as well as Farmers and Gardener using chemicals. Now Gardening in Virginia and can out grow chemical users. Have control over insects without insecticides. I am not an Agriculture College Educated Farmer, but use Logic and common sense and observation and a good memory.
I am very concerned with the 100 million tons of Synthetic nitrogen spread on the planet every year. It burns up the Organic matter that is the life of the soil and releases it as CO2 claimed to be the Green House Gas. I do know for a fact that the Organic Matter is depleted and only dirt is left which is dead. All the food that comes from this dirt is loaded with chemicals and all illnesses are on the increase. With all the technology they should be on the decease. Mother blood and breast milk have traces of 24-D which is a hormone.
I have tried to encourage some FFA Chapters to at least try Organic. Not successful as the biggest monopolies in the US are Chemical Companies. It helps to have 35 lobbyists in DC. I will never give up as I know the difference in Organic VS Chemical. I never have taken any Government help as they would be in control. I hope that someone will soon figure out that Agriculture is headed to the point of no return if the Agriculture procedures are not soon changed.
Wrote a book when 82 --- Learned by the Fencepost---- Lessons in Organic Farming and Gardening Published in 2011. It is on Google by typing the title. It is very easy reading and several pictures.
I have been called many names by the Agriculture Scientists. When they do not have the facts it is a political practice to call names. I call the GMO promoters test tube Farmers. I tell them the truth and they do not like it.
It seems that the powers to be have not done enough to let the richest and most powerful monopolies in the US our (Chemical Companies) ruin our soil. They are letting China finish the job buy burning up the refuge left over from the fields to make paper. I read Dan Charles Article “Our Fertilized World” in the National Geographic. He states that China has been the heaviest user of synthetic nitrogen. Also that 70% of the green house gas that is CO2 is coming from the chemicals burning up the carbon (Organic Matter). He finishes by saying that Agriculture should be taken out of the Laboratories and returned to the Farmers and the fields.
I will tell the Secretary of Agriculture that Monsanto and other chemical Companies have ruined the fertile soil on our planet in 80 years. The Master built up the fertile soil over millions of years. I have been asked if I am Master Gardener and I say no I Garden with the Master.

JonJan. 19th, 2015

@Don Lewis. The use of Roundup and herbicide resistant crops has led to the wide expansion of no-till methods in large scale commercial agriculture in the past two decades. This has likely saved far more soil that organic advocacy of late. Cheers.

Jon, your bogeyman, "unscientific, alarmist discourse on GMOs from the first world", does not exist. Instead, what we see is an increasing awareness of research showing very serious problems with GMOs. You clearly did not watch the Seattle conference. Nor do you understand the impact of the Gates Foundation. It's not simply another option.

It is an industry-generated myth that "the wide expansion of no-till methods in large scale commercial agriculture" shows greater promise than Regenerative Organic Agriculture (ROA - Rodale Institute white paper). Globalized, industrial agriculture contributes 44-57% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. That is an undeniable problem that begs to be addressed in the larger picture of climate change. No-till just slaps lipstick on that pig.

Just read that UCDavis has joined forces with the mass market junk food candy company Mars, to create a food institute to do who knows what in the food industry. As long as state land grant agricultural institutions keep going down that PR-disastrous path that the public can see right through, anything that comes out of them will be seen as industry-generated propaganda.

Cheers.

JonJan. 20th, 2015

Linda, what are those "very serious problems with GMOs?" I am sincerely interested.

Kenya banned GMOs without consulting their biosafety committee after the Seralini study.

His rats are widely featured in alarmist propaganda. Here's one with "Genocide Bill Gates" ). You suggest this doesn't exist.

http://thewe.cc/thewe_/images_6/-/world-domination/gmo-tumors.jpg

Which is likely to save more soil-- expanding organic methods? Or advocating the conversion of large scale commercial agriculture to no-till? Why not do both?

Thoughtful criticism of particular extension programs is fine-- banning GMOs is the ultimate in reductionistic thinking.

Beth MarkhartApr. 5th, 2015

In the 1980s I started reading Monsanto's circulars distributed to their retirees (my father in law was a distinguished Fellow at Monsanto) touting the wonders of RoundUp. Over time the wonders changed from one thing to another until finally landing on the most contemporary wonder, 'food security'. In the early 1980s, in graduate school, no one winced on the UMN campus when I proposed to genetically engineer cattails for better phosphorus uptake (we all drank the Kool Aid). The holy grail would be to deal with photorespiration - should I be embarrassed after all these decades that my gene-jockying contemporaries could only come up with herbicide tolerance (that has a much shorter lifespan than was expected)? As for 'food security', that is mainly a social and political challenge, not a technological one.

JonApr. 6th, 2015

Only herbicide tolerance? What about insect resistance and virus resistance, already on the market? And honestly, food security was has been promoted by two things in the 20th century-- fertilizers and improved seeds. We'll use precision ag methods to lower fertilizer use while keeping yields high, and biotech seeds are just the next gen of improved seeds.

After reading this entire discussion on GMOs, is there any way to contact Linda, or is there a way for her to contact me? I find her to be very knowledgeable about this controversial subject, and I'd like to talk. The GM alfalfa issue is rapidly pushing into Canada and there are many who are trying to influence decisionmakers to allow this to happen. Those of us who are opposed are large in number but have small $$ for lobbying our government. The powerful pro lobby has already had enough influence to get it approved by Health Canada as not unsafe (which is different than being proven safe) and substantially equivalent (which isn't proven as being equivalent). It seems big business has much influence, even though public support is very low. Opposition to GM alfalfa is coming from many different industries, including exporters of hay and seed, honey exporters, and growers, to name a few. I'd appreciate being able to contact Linda if there is a way. Thanks.

RickJul. 11th, 2016

Linda said ". . . but especially in the case of Golden Rice, since the intention of that product is to replace a staple food in local communities, . . . "

I disagree with that characterization. Golden rice is not intended to replace a staple food in local communities. Nor is the Golden Rice project choosing rice as a staple. The golden rice project is an effort to fortify what has already emerged as a dietary staple due to cultural, historical, climatic, practical and other factors. Fortification of food and feed is not a novel concept, we have several examples through breeding (e.g. cassava, high lysine corn) and additives (e.g. iodized salt). It is not replacing rice, it is adding a critical dietary element to rice.

I, and I suspect most people who support giving golden rice a try, do not argue basing a diet largely on rice is optimal. Nor am I saying that because fortification might be practical to begin alleviating the problem of a serious dietary deficiency today that we should abandon long-term efforts at political, cultural and agronomic reforms that might result in an even more ideal dietary reality. I am only acknowledging that rice as a staple is a fact on the ground that history has dealt and I am skeptical that the ideal world golden rice opponents might visualize is necessarily a realistically achievable goal in any reasonable timeframe to help children today.

It is not my intention to be confrontational, but I would be interested in your response to this question. Suppose that someone found a way to breed vitamin A precursers into rice, say we found a wild rice weed species somewhere that we had previously overlooked that had that capability (This is what essentially happened with cassava as I understand it). And like golden rice, the fortified cultivars were provided for free to public breeding programs for crossing with local, public varieties of rice to transfer the beta carotene enrichment trait, provided to willing farmers free of charge (or whatever pricing public breeding programs might institute for any other variety) and no restrictions on seed saving.

Under the hypothetical (vitamin A trait acquired through conventional breeding) all the arguments raised against golden rice would still be present -- fortification is a poor alternative to diversifying diets, questions whether local populations can digest and metabolize the beta carotene provided through rice, the fortification trait might escape and contaminate non-fortified indigenous cultivars of rice, etc..

I would be interested in your response to this question: Is it the fortification strategy that is wrong, or is it only wrong because genetic engineering was initially used to acquire the fortification trait?

I suspect you and I probably won't agree on the merits of the golden rice fortification project, but I am interested in your thoughts.

dafikAug. 25th, 2017

Yes, labeling will allow for trustworhty & accountability, something that the biotech/chem industry should welcome as, according to their PR teams, this could support their industry insistence that GMOs & GE agriculture are safe. http://www.agrotechnomarket.com/2016/12/the-pros-and-cons-of-indoor-farming.html

Post a Comment

You care about environmental issues. So do we!

Sign up now for our bi-weekly newsletter and you'll get the latest stories from Ensia delivered straight to your inbox.